Scientology abandoned by Hubbard's granddaughter & Miscavige's father

[marplots]

This is a favorite Scientology tactic, as we've seen in this thread over and over already -- label every other institution on Earth a "cult" to try to take the barb out of Scientology=cult formulation.

Here's a handy guide:
Scientology -- cult
West Point -- not cult

This comes in when some description is offered up, not just for "cult," but a lot of things. To those who don't need a definition, they just "know." But I read what's offered up and think about it, and try to apply it -- well, that's no good at all.

I wouldn't mind it so much except the words on offer usually have negative connotations that are meant to slip through the door along with the description. So we get, "criminal" and "cult" and "conman" and so on. It's not that I necessarily disagree (especially after looking at all the great references offered up).

What happens on my end is it pushes my critical thinker/skeptic button. Things should be challenged where possible. I don't mean it personally and don't take responses personally either. It's a good way to learn things -- try to find weaknesses in someone's argument and ask questions. Good arguments survive inquiry.

But loaded words are a kind of code to filter out those who agree or disagree with you. A short hand way to draw party lines and make everything into an us vs. them. I hate that. JREF is best when it is dispassionate discourse instead of agenda driven teams.

But that's just me and what I prefer. Like everyone else, I try to shape the discussion in ways I find most interesting and useful. If someone feels the need to label my point of view one way or another, how can I complain? I'm certainly not the arbiter of "better" or "worse" here.

I really do find Scientology fascinating, if for no other reason than as a commentary on how humans operate. If it's nasty and vile, well, it's something nasty and vile that my fellow humans are up to. I'd like to know why. I've learned a great deal about it in this thread, and JREF remains an excellent resource. What I cannot do is dismiss everything scientologists have to say out of hand or paint them as something fundamentally different than other humans.

I value what fredcarr has to say. After all, I'm not about to spend 30 years getting to where he is. In a sense, he's an expert on scientology. He might be wrong or deluded, but he has a perspective I couldn't get from anyone else.

 

[DuvalHMFIC]

You know, my uncle went to West Point for 4 years. Then he served his four years in the military, including time in Korea (in the '80s). Then he left, got a job with Mobil Oil, moved up their ranks. After about 10 years, he left Mobil Oil for Armor Holdings, Inc. where he was hired as CEO. They later became BAE systems (I think that's their name anyhow), and he retired before he was 45 years old.

He gives nothing to West Point, and doesn't have to, other than the 4 years he served in the military. He isn't expected to participate in any way with any West Point functions. West point was a vehicle to a really good life for him, and it was a 2 way relationship. How this is remotely like a cult, where you are expected to remain for life, and give until you die, is beyond me.

I won't begin to try to argue that brainwashing doesn't occur in the military, of course it does. But you aren't beholden to that for the rest of your life, it's simply a means to an end.

 

[hgc]

The comes in when some description is offered up, not just for "cult," but a lot of things. To those who don't need a definition, they just "know." But I read what's offered up and think about it, and try to apply it -- well, that's no good at all.

I wouldn't mind it so much except the words on offer usually have negative connotations that are meant to slip through the door along with the description. So we get, "criminal" and "cult" and "conman" and so on. It's not that I necessarily disagree (especially after looking at all the great references offered up).

What happens on my end is it pushes my critical thinker/skeptic button. Things should be challenged where possible. I don't mean it personally and don't take responses personally either. It's a good way to learn things -- try to find weaknesses in someone's argument and ask questions. Good arguments survive inquiry.

But loaded words are a kind of code to filter out those who agree or disagree with you. A short hand way to draw party lines and make everything into an us vs. them. I hate that. JREF is best when it is dispassionate discourse instead of agenda driven teams.

But that's just me and what I prefer. Like everyone else, I try to shape the discussion in ways I find most interesting and useful. If someone feels the need to label my point of view one way or another, how can I complain? I'm certainly not the arbiter of "better" or "worse" here.

I really do find Scientology fascinating, if for no other reason than as a commentary on how humans operate. If it's nasty and vile, well, it's something nasty and vile that my fellow humans are up to. I'd like to know why. I've learned a great deal about it in this thread, and JREF remains an excellent resource. What I cannot do is dismiss everything scientologists have to say out of hand or paint them as something fundamentally different than other humans.

I value what fredcarr has to say. After all, I'm not about to spend 30 years getting to where he is. In a sense, he's an expert on scientology. He might be wrong or deluded, but he has a perspective I couldn't get from anyone else.

I do use a definition for cult. I do not just "know" that some organization is a cult. Here's a reasonable guide: http://www.anandainfo.com/cult_checklist.html

 

[marplots]

I won't begin to try to argue that brainwashing doesn't occur in the military, of course it does. But you aren't beholden to that for the rest of your life, it's simply a means to an end.

It's a great place. I just refused to be molded -- rebelliousness of youth and all.

Maybe it does come down to the ends justify the means. When is it moral to shape someone psychologically and when not? You can't just say, "when they agree to it" because that's part of what real cults do -- elicit agreement. You can't just say "when it benefits them" either, because benefits come in a variety of shapes and sizes. Reading one of the escapee's reports (Bunker, maybe), he was happy for decades in Scientology, he felt he was doing useful work and his life had purpose. If anything, he hated Miscavage personally, not the organization overall.

How am I to judge a priest who devotes his entire adult life to what I think is completely bogus? Where I sit, it's nuts. Where he's at, probably not.

If I want the freedom to follow my own course, it's a tough call to tell another they shouldn't. But all that assumes they know something about what they are getting into and have the wit to make an informed decision.

I like the idea of the FDA coming in and saying, in effect, "This part is a lie." That helps because it gives an outside expertise and commentary that can be used to evaluate a particular claim.

 

[marplots]

I do use a definition for cult. I do not just "know" that some organization is a cult. Here's a reasonable guide: http://www.anandainfo.com/cult_checklist.html

Good checklist. You'll probably agree it isn't an all-or-none thing though. Wasn't there a zillion post thread arguing about whether AA is a cult or not?

One typo on the list had me cracking up:

Members'subservience to the group causes them to give up previous personal goats...

I will not give up my personal goat!

In this instance, I think this bias might apply: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge
I would be the less informed person in that description.

 

[hgc]

Good checklist. You'll probably agree it isn't an all-or-none thing though. Wasn't there a zillion post thread arguing about whether AA is a cult or not?

Oh sure. Not every single item on the list will appear in every case, and it's still a judgment thing. But if you're scoring on 4 out of 5, the case is starting to look pretty strong.

One typo on the list had me cracking up:

I will not give up my personal goat!

God help us if there's a cult out there for which the goat situation is pertinent.

 

[DuvalHMFIC]

Of course any adult is free to do and believe whatever they like, as long as it doesn't affect me. My big issue with Scientology, at the end of the day, is still the tax exempt status. I don't really like that any religion gets to be tax exempt, but I especially dislike Scientology getting it, because they aren't taking real donations. They are selling products and a service. That's fine if that's what they want to do, but masquerading as a religion is a sham that IS affecting me, albeit only a very small amount.

I can go to a church every week and never donate a thing. I may get a dirty look, but the church(most, anyway) won't kick me out. I'll still get to listen to the sermon on Sunday. My kids can go to Sunday school. I don't have to pay for one on one time with the Preacher. That being said, I'ms still bothered by the tax emempt status for all relgions as I've seen too many treat donations like a profit, and the holy rollers driving extremely nice cars with lavish houses. Pay your taxes and spend the money on whatever the heck you want.

 

[fredcarr]

I'd like to hear what fredcarr has to say about what he was promised and what was delivered.

Off hand I can't remember being promised anything. There have been a few times in Mr. Hubbard's writings when he has been more emphatic about trying out a principle than other times.

He has said several times that nothing in Dianetics or Scientology is true unless its true according to your own observation.

http://www.scientology.org/what-is-...ciples-of-scientology/personal-integrity.html

Most of my time within Scientology is in studying the works of Mr. Hubbard. Whether its reading one of his books, listening to one of his many lectures or reading an article he wrote on one topic or another. This is the primary activity of Scientology (studying our scriptures.)

The next step is to then take some part of it and apply it to my life. To test its workability. I don't always do this so don't know if something works like it should. But there have been numerous occasions when I have applied some principle and found it to work exactly as described.

So I guess you could say I have gotten what I have been promised in a roundabout sort of way. But that is a bit of a stretch I think. I look at ROn's works as a record of his observations. It is up to me to go look for myself and decide if what he saw fits with my perspective. More often than not it does - that's probably why I am a Scientologist.

 

[dafydd]

Most of my time within Scientology is in studying the works of Mr. Hubbard. Whether its reading one of his books, listening to one of his many lectures or reading an article he wrote on one topic or another. This is the primary activity of Scientology (studying our scriptures.)

Do you mean gems of wisdom like these?

http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/quotes-by-and-about-hubbard.htm

"Show me any person who is critical of us and I'll show you crimes and intended crimes that would stand a magistrate's hair on end." - L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin, 4 April 1965


Lovely guy.

 

[fredcarr]

You've followed the L. Ron Hubbard prescription of attacking the enemy, and the 'net as you vaguely refer to it is obviously your enemy. We are told we cannot trust the internet. That's what Scientology is folks: you cannot trust the internet. All this stuff about what Scientology is NOT, and nothing about what it IS.

That is how you "inform" us about Scientology: by attacking the internet and pretending to be giving away free information while giving none. Analogies and parables are not information. Oh wow, such a HUGE surprise they are presently out of "free" copies. Look how hard we are trying to get this information out.

The personal testimony is so cute, with you having given away free books. See how I am giving information by saying I gave it to someone else?

The main theme of L. Ron Hubbard is doing the opposite of what you are saying. So here we have all these loud noises about providing information while at the same time providing exactly none. Who has provided actual source information? The skeptics.

I don't find the net to be my enemy. Sorry if I gave that impression.

I have provided link that give lots of information. I'm not sure what else you are asking? Do you want me to rewrite the 30 - 40 million words on the subject?

I'm not sure I equated Scientology to "you cannot trust the internet." I might be mistaken here on this point: Are you saying I think that or is that your view?

You've lost me on what you are trying to say. If you want source information on what Scientology is then go to the website or read a book by Mr. Hubbard. The best I can do is give my perspective on things. Of course, if people think I am not being sincere in my answers then I can't do much about that. In which case why even bother listening.

 

[fredcarr]

Of course any adult is free to do and believe whatever they like, as long as it doesn't affect me. My big issue with Scientology, at the end of the day, is still the tax exempt status. I don't really like that any religion gets to be tax exempt, but I especially dislike Scientology getting it, because they aren't taking real donations. They are selling products and a service. That's fine if that's what they want to do, but masquerading as a religion is a sham that IS affecting me, albeit only a very small amount.

I can go to a church every week and never donate a thing. I may get a dirty look, but the church(most, anyway) won't kick me out. I'll still get to listen to the sermon on Sunday. My kids can go to Sunday school. I don't have to pay for one on one time with the Preacher. That being said, I'ms still bothered by the tax emempt status for all relgions as I've seen too many treat donations like a profit, and the holy rollers driving extremely nice cars with lavish houses. Pay your taxes and spend the money on whatever the heck you want.

I hear what you are saying. Our tithing system is certainly different than other well know churches from what I can tell. Those that use the services and facilities are asked to donate. Yet we do have Sunday service like other traditional western churches and no plate is passed. Also there are a number of free services available to anyone walking in off the street.

And I know for a fact that Scientology Ministers donate many hours of their own personal time in the task of helping others.

If I don't do anything at my local church for a couple years then I might not donate anything to my church either. Then again if I have some extra monies lying around I might.

I do understand the point about some churches out there seem to have some rather lavish goodies. Last time I checked I think I make far more money than any of our senior Scientology officials. So am not too worried about that issue.

Best,

Fred

 

[DuvalHMFIC]

I'll try to ask this is a better way. How do you reconcile all of the good writings and lectures of LRH, with the many angry, controlling type writings that have been quoted here? I realize no human is perfect, but you'd have to admit that he was certainly devising a plan to deal with detractors, correct?

 

[DuvalHMFIC]

I hear what you are saying. Our tithing system is certainly different than other well know churches from what I can tell. Those that use the services and facilities are asked to donate. Yet we do have Sunday service like other traditional western churches and no plate is passed. Also there are a number of free services available to anyone walking in off the street.

And I know for a fact that Scientology Ministers donate many hours of their own personal time in the task of helping others.

If I don't do anything at my local church for a couple years then I might not donate anything to my church either. Then again if I have some extra monies lying around I might.

I do understand the point about some churches out there seem to have some rather lavish goodies. Last time I checked I think I make far more money than any of our senior Scientology officials. So am not too worried about that issue.

Best,

Fred

I've been told this same thing by both you and Justinian, but as stated earlier in the thread, it's not what I witnessed. I have been to the church in Clearwater, and I was expected to pay for services the moment I walked through the door. Without paying for any service, there would have been no point in staying. If I remember correctly, I think I was offered the free stress test. But since I had already been auditing at home with a fellow upstart, they wanted me to immediately start paying for auditing sessions that day, as well as purchase a collection of, I believe, 6 of LRH's lectures on tape. We were also pressured into buying a couple of books as well.

The books and tapes were pressure sales, and nothing more. But the auditing session, that was mandatory, or as I said before, there would literally have been no reason to stay.

 

[fredcarr]

I'll try to ask this is a better way. How do you reconcile all of the good writings and lectures of LRH, with the many angry, controlling type writings that have been quoted here? I realize no human is perfect, but you'd have to admit that he was certainly devising a plan to deal with detractors, correct?

Good question. A couple points here:

1. Whistling dixie is a fine activity but one should also take steps to ensure one's one survival. I think its clear that some would like to destroy my religion, personally I like it and wish to see it survive. (There are even posters on this forum that would like to see all religions go away.)

2. I have no idea of the percentage of writings by Mr. Hubbard that are devoted to protecting our religion compared to the "good writings and lectures". I'd only be hazarding a guess that it is less than a tenth of a percent that are devoted to legal matters, etc. (I don't really know.) But even those writing have to do with organizational matters as opposed to our religious scriptures.

In the book The Way To Happiness written by Mr. Hubbard he discussess this point in the last chapter called 'Flourish and Prosper':

http://www.thewaytohappiness.org/thewaytohappiness/precepts/flourish-and-prosper.html

Sometimes others seek to crush one down, to make nothing out of one’s hopes and dreams, one’s future and oneself.


By ridicule and many other means, another who is evil-intentioned toward one can try to bring about one’s decline.


For whatever reason, efforts to improve oneself, to become happier in life, can become the subject of attacks.


It is sometimes necessary to handle such directly. But there is a long-range handling that seldom fails.


What, exactly, are such people trying to do to one? They are trying to reduce one downward.


They must conceive that one is dangerous to them in some way: that if one got up in the world, one could be a menace to them. So, in various ways, such seek to depress one’s talents and capabilities.


Some madmen even have a general plan that goes like this: “If A becomes more successful, A could be a menace to me; therefore I must do all I can to make A less successful.” It never seems to occur to such that their actions might make an enemy out of A even though he was no enemy before. It can be classed as an almost certain way for such madmen to get into trouble. Some do it just from prejudice or because they “don’t like someone.”


But however it is attempted, the real object of such is to make their target grow less and fail in life.


The real handling of such a situation and such people, the real way to defeat them is to flourish and prosper.


Oh, yes, it is true that such people, seeing one improve his lot, can become frantic and attack all the harder. The thing to do is handle them if one must but don’t give up flourishing and prospering, for that is what such people want you to do.


If you flourish and prosper more and more, such people go into apathy about it: they can give it up completely.


If one’s aims in life are worthwhile, if one carries them out with some attention to the precepts in this book, if one flourishes and prospers, one certainly will wind up the victor. And, hopefully, without harming a single hair on their heads.

The point being that its far better to simply to continue to flourish and prosper. Sometimes one has to handle individuals but I have found this to be a very rare occurrence in my life.

3. Once on another forum some quote from a book was being talked about and I asked what I thought of it. Not wanting to be mistaken when I replied I got a copy of the book in question and looked at the quote in question. I typed out the quote with the sentence before and the sentence after.

A very different view presented itself to the readers.

I think in the 10 plus years on the net I have only bothered doing that once or twice. I'm sure I could easily spend a year doing such an activity but to what end? I doubt it will change very many minds on such a forum as this. (I could be wrong but like another poster has said - there is so many things to discover in life.)

If a person were to read the Way to Happiness and find that it had nothing to offer I doubt that anything else I could show that individual would help clear things up.

Best,

Fred

 

[dafydd]

Good question. A couple points here:

1. Whistling dixie is a fine activity but one should also take steps to ensure one's one survival. I think its clear that some would like to destroy my religion,

It is not a religion.

 

[fredcarr]

I've been told this same thing by both you and Justinian, but as stated earlier in the thread, it's not what I witnessed. I have been to the church in Clearwater, and I was expected to pay for services the moment I walked through the door. Without paying for any service, there would have been no point in staying. If I remember correctly, I think I was offered the free stress test. But since I had already been auditing at home with a fellow upstart, they wanted me to immediately start paying for auditing sessions that day, as well as purchase a collection of, I believe, 6 of LRH's lectures on tape. We were also pressured into buying a couple of books as well.

The books and tapes were pressure sales, and nothing more. But the auditing session, that was mandatory, or as I said before, there would literally have been no reason to stay.

Interesting - Was that the main church in Clearwater? What year was that?

What were you co-auditing at home with a friend?

I hang out at my local church all the time and don't spend a penny. Sometimes I just drop by to read something or watch something I haven't had a chance to read and/or see yet.

I went to the church in Clearwater a very long time ago and hung out for quite a while and nobody tried to sell me anything.

In fact in my business I often get the chance to visit one of the new churches in some area and usually just hang out as well. (I did buy a book at one church but wanted something to read on the flight home.)

Sorry to hear that it went like that for you. Hope your auditing is going okay.

 

[xjx388]

Off hand I can't remember being promised anything.

Really? Nothing in your readings of Hubbard's numerous books and policy bulletins or in your listenings to his vast library of lectures contained even hint of a promise of anything? Increased IQ? Better vision? The ability to be at cause over matter, energy, space and time? And you didn't find ample illustrations of these supposed miracles anywhere in the Church's publications?Here's a good reminder of a few of them: http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/02/scientologys_ot.php
So, it sounds to me like Scientologists are promised all kinds of paranormal powers. Have you moved any cars with your "pure intention" lately?

There have been a few times in Mr. Hubbard's writings when he has been more emphatic about trying out a principle than other times.

I think it's much more fair to say that he's emphatic that you try out all his stuff but only accept "what is true for you."

He has said several times that nothing in Dianetics or Scientology is true unless its true according to your own observation.

http://www.scientology.org/what-is-...ciples-of-scientology/personal-integrity.html

So then what in Scientology is, "true according to your own observation." You personally, I mean? Exteriorization? Moving cars with pure intention?

Most of my time within Scientology is in studying the works of Mr. Hubbard. Whether its reading one of his books, listening to one of his many lectures or reading an article he wrote on one topic or another. This is the primary activity of Scientology (studying our scriptures.)

I think this is a gross mischaracterization of what Scientologists do. Auditing is the primary activity; it's how you "get saved" so to speak. Oh sure, you have to read all the books and listen to all the lectures. But these things are secondary to auditing. Auditing is what gets you Clear and OT and all the promised powers that come along with that.

The next step is to then take some part of it and apply it to my life. To test its workability. I don't always do this so don't know if something works like it should. But there have been numerous occasions when I have applied some principle and found it to work exactly as described.

Such as? It's easy to say this, but hard to demonstrate.

So I guess you could say I have gotten what I have been promised in a roundabout sort of way. But that is a bit of a stretch I think. I look at ROn's works as a record of his observations. It is up to me to go look for myself and decide if what he saw fits with my perspective. More often than not it does - that's probably why I am a Scientologist.

So you don't ever participate in auditing?

 

[marplots]

(snipped some)
I have provided link that give lots of information. I'm not sure what else you are asking? Do you want me to rewrite the 30 - 40 million words on the subject?
(snipped a bit more)

You've lost me on what you are trying to say. If you want source information on what Scientology is then go to the website or read a book by Mr. Hubbard...

I just wanted to point out a problem at my end. Coming at this and trying to keep an open mind, I criticized the catch phrases and labels. But the alternative seems to be "read a book" or "look at these 6 websites" -- or some equivalent. (This from both points of view.)

It is difficult to understand what's going on in an environment where the choices are either to accept a shorthand version built from conclusions of those who have explored deeply, or open the valve on a firehose of documents.

That said, those who paint Scientology as a cult and a con have a distinct advantage. They can extract those parts that most clearly demonstrate their points while the Scientologists cannot. This asymmetry drives the discussion.

Some examples of similar asymmetries:

"Here are some really nutty things in the Bible"
"Oh, but you can't evaluate the Bible unless you read the entire thing along with having a strong connection with the Holy Spirit. Alternatively, you can accept this authority."

"Here are some surprising conclusions from Evolution, things outside my experience."
"You need to read up on the theory to really grasp those details, the answers are hidden in complex biology. Learning some math will help too. Alternatively, you can accept this authority."

Lest I be accused of equivocation and false analogy, I should say I am not addressing truth values here, just the difficulty in communicating complex and nuanced points of view. It's a PR problem.

 

[fredcarr]

I think this is a gross mischaracterization of what Scientologists do.

I think it is a very fair statement to make that the study of Mr. Hubbard's written and recorded works is the primary activity of Scientologists.

Yes a certain portion of it is the application of some of his writings to another in our spiritual counseling practices.

Also time is spent in training to deliver such practices as well.

But I think purely on a time spent basis that the study of Mr. Hubbards works far out weighs any other activity.

 

[tsig]

Fred usual tactics to avoid direct questions are
1, Change the subject.
2. Make some innocuous remark that we can all agree on ( a particular CoS learnt tactic)
3. Direct you to read one of LRH's books or to a CoS "information" site.
4. Say he doesn't care as it doesn't affect him, he's never seen/experienced it so can't comment.
5. Play the "you can't diss my religious beliefs" card so anyone who criticises CoS is just a bigot

Good question. A couple points here:

1. Whistling dixie is a fine activity but one should also take steps to ensure one's one survival. I think its clear that some would like to destroy my religion, personally I like it and wish to see it survive. (There are even posters on this forum that would like to see all religions go away.)

2. I have no idea of the percentage of writings by Mr. Hubbard that are devoted to protecting our religion compared to the "good writings and lectures". I'd only be hazarding a guess that it is less than a tenth of a percent that are devoted to legal matters, etc. (I don't really know.) But even those writing have to do with organizational matters as opposed to our religious scriptures.

In the book The Way To Happiness written by Mr. Hubbard he discussess this point in the last chapter called 'Flourish and Prosper': http://www.thewaytohappiness.org/thewaytohappiness/precepts/flourish-and-prosper.html



The point being that its far better to simply to continue to flourish and prosper. Sometimes one has to handle individuals but I have found this to be a very rare occurrence in my life.

3. Once on another forum some quote from a book was being talked about and I asked what I thought of it. Not wanting to be mistaken when I replied I got a copy of the book in question and looked at the quote in question. I typed out the quote with the sentence before and the sentence after.

A very different view presented itself to the readers.

I think in the 10 plus years on the net I have only bothered doing that once or twice. I'm sure I could easily spend a year doing such an activity but to what end? I doubt it will change very many minds on such a forum as this. (I could be wrong but like another poster has said - there is so many things to discover in life.)

If a person were to read the Way to Happiness and find that it had nothing to offer I doubt that anything else I could show that individual would help clear things up.

Best,

Fred

1, 5 and 3